Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 1

Re the complaint about lack of response from the admin people - it probably has a lot to do with Larry's wedding. I'm sure someone will get around to it. - MMGB

The following was submitted:

Motherland and Fatherland - contained linguistic errors and of dubious usefulness altogether

This doesn't seem to be justification for permanent deletion, but of editing. If there is a better way of presenting the information, then they could be redirected to that topic. But eliminating all record of the entry seems unnecessary. See in particular talk:Fatherland for earlier discussion.

The following were submitted:

Political media
- RobLa May 14, 2002, because : Ramblin' ramblin' ramblin'...

Rambling isn't a reason for deletion, just editing.

I was admittedly glib in my dismissal. My problem is that "political media" is a vague and ambiguous term that may not be worthy of a whole article. The current article describes "government propoganda" or "government-owned media" much more than "political media". Nonetheless, I've revoted this as a candidate for a rewrite. -- RobLa

Orange juice
- Marj Tiefert May 21, 2002, because : <i>juice is mentioned on the orange page</i>

It's almost always better to break up than to consolidate articles. It's certainly true that orange juice is a stub.

--The Cunctator

Eclecticology wrote: Why do we need page 2 of anything?

If a page exceeds 32 KiB, many web browsers will have trouble editing it in a <textarea> element. I'd start splitting a page into subpages around 16 KiB. --Damian Yerrick

I agree that overly long pages should be split, but more for readability than because of some arbitrary length limit; backwards compatability is nice, but we shouldn't sacrifice coherence for it. Instead, I try to split up long articles along logical lines - for example, some subject may have a lengthy history, in which case the history half of the article could be split off into "history of subject". Bryan Derksen

Your approach is quite sensible. When I raised my question it was in response to a page Alan Millar/page 2, apparently a misplaced user page. Maybe I was a tad sarcastic about the unimaginative "Page 2" Eclecticology, Sunday, May 26, 2002

Bryan Derksen voted to delete Testudines. I disagree; it's a taxon of turtles, so I taxonomized it. -phma

And then why didn't you remove this entry from the the deletion queue? The version Bryan was looking at existed before your additions. --maveric149

I just deleted Tryptophan - nothing but a silly rhyme, no history, created just the other day, so no link-breaking. --Magnus Manske, Wednesday, June 19, 2002

Ahem, ahem. It is clear from the Diff that the Grim reaper was just trying to make a User page linked to his home page. He wasn't trying to use the wikipedia article as a home page. Rule #13 (blessed be its number) says nothing against external linking to a home page. I was planning to do the same (as soon as I get the damn thing up). Is there a rule? If so, where?Ortolan88

What wikipedia is not #10 is titled "Mere collections of external links" and user pages are for users (as in contributors), the person who made grim reaper has only made one thing, that page. See for yourself. contributions of 62.20.238.237. People who are not users don't need user pages. Wikipedia is not GeoCities. --maveric149